Q9 - Manager: When Sullivan was passed

[LSAT-Chang]

Did anyone see a flaw after reading the argument core? I had to move on to the answer choices because I couldn't spot the flaw after even having the core down.

This was my core: Several recent promotions have been given to people older than Sullivan, THEREFORE it is not the case that Sullivan's being much older than the competitors was the deciding factor for his promotion.

I knew something was "weird" about the argument since obviously it is a flaw question, but couldn't think of anything that clearly stood out. Can someone help with this question? I eliminated (E) right off the bat, but felt like (A) (B) and (C) were all similar in meaning (all dealing with being qualified and experienced), so didn't know which one to pick, so ended up just picking (D) in the end. But I still don't know why (A) (B) and (C) are wrong, and why (D) would be the flaw in the reasoning.

[demetri.blaisdell]

This is a classic flaw question. Your core is correct:

several people older than Sullivan have gotten promotions --> Sullivan was not passed over because he was older than his competition

The gap here has to do with using the experience of Sullivan's co-workers to tell me why Sullivan was passed over for promotion. The devil is in the details: the conclusion says that Sullivan was not passed over because he was older than his competition (not "because he was old"). What if the other promotions were given to the youngest member of a group of old geezers? (D) gives us exactly that flaw. Those other people were the youngest among people being considered for their promotions and could have received it because they were the youngest (whether they are older than Sullivan or not).

(A) is not the flaw. The argument concludes that he wasn't passed up because he was old. (A) removes the possibility he wasn't qualified. But he could still have been passed up because the company was losing money or because he somehow annoyed the boss. This would still mean that age was not the deciding factor.

(B) is out of scope. The argument does not conclude that age was not a factor, but that it was not the "deciding factor" in his promotion. The manager might even agree that age was one of many factors, so he/she didn't fail to consider this.

(C) is the reverse of what we are looking for. The argument concludes that his being too old was not the deciding factor. Assuming (C) would only make the argument stronger by telling us that older people are more qualified for promotions. This would help the manager to conclude that Sullivan's age wasn't the reason he was passed up.

(E) is out of scope. The conclusion is about him not receiving the promotion for some other reason than his age. Decisions---confidential or public---are made for some reason. (E) does not tell me why Sullivan was passed up.

I hope that helps you understand this question. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri

[LSAT-Chang]

Thank you so much for the great explanation!!